Darren10 Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 I think that Valentius has authored a new creed called the quadrinity, being composed of the Father, Mother, Son, and Holy Ghost.Awe, man, I'd go for John Lenon but, OK, I'll concede to Heavenly Mother.
Damien the Leper Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 You have your understanding of the LDS concept. I want to get a working definition from you so that we don't talk past each other.What I thought the LDS believed was that God and Jesus were two separate beings made of flesh and bone. The Spirit did not have a body. However, the Father, the Son and the Spirit make up a tritheistic pantheon of gods exclusive to this plane of existence. I was also under the impression that the Father commanded Jesus and Michael to essentially create and order everything known to our reality.But this could be absolutely 100% incorrect. Either way, I reject it as scriptural (my opinion).
Damien the Leper Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 You are so incorrect on that. The following weblink I think you'll like since its intent is to be anti anti-trinitarian. Although the jehovah's Witnesses are singled out, its home page has links to anti-Mormon propaganda so mayby you'll like that as well. I think it's the typical tripe garbage you can find anywhere aganst Mormonism but I digress. And this where you and I will permanently part ways. I'm not an anti- Mormon nor do I condone any anti- Mormon rhetoric. The last time I was called an anti- Mormon, it was by my brother and it broke my heart. I may not agree with LDS theology but I am not of the opinion that it is a cult and I harbor no ill feelings toward the church, its foundations or its believers.With that said, take care Darren.
Damien the Leper Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 Valentinus;I think at the core of all this is that you are rebelious in nature. You like to rebel against whatever the norm is. (Assuming you were LDS which I think I recall you one time saying you were) Mormonism didn't work out for you so you went to Atheism. Atheism didn't work out for you so you return to Christianity though you can't return to mormonism so you go trinitarian. I don't think you have a firm belief in anything other than to rebel and to cause trouble.Sky nailed you big time in #243 and I think that stands as strong evidence that you're just causing a roukus, not declaring anything you firmly believe in.Then you dont know me at all.
ERayR Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 What I thought the LDS believed was that God and Jesus were two separate beings made of flesh and bone. The Spirit did not have a body. However, the Father, the Son and the Spirit make up a tritheistic pantheon of gods exclusive to this plane of existence. I was also under the impression that the Father commanded Jesus and Michael to essentially create and order everything known to our reality.But this could be absolutely 100% incorrect. Either way, I reject it as scriptural (my opinion).You have a pretty good understanding of the LDS concept. Now put your concept in simple easy to understand terms just as you have done with the LDS concept.
pogi Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 Then you dont know me at all.I agree, I don't see the rebellion in you at all.
Damien the Leper Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 Earlier in the thread, you said that Heavenly Mother is real and that we should pray to her. Now you are reminding us that the Bible says that there is one God. So does that mean I should pray to Heavenly Mother or Heavenly Father? Is Heavenly Mother the One God referred to in the Bible? Where does that leave the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? The scriptures say that we must always pray unto the Father in the name of Jesus.I was speaking from an LDS perspective. Whether or not I agree with Mormon Theology is irrelevant. I love and respect your beliefs because they are unique in their own way. I advocated prayer to Her because I see her as extremely important to LDS beliefs. I did not mean to seem inconsistent.
Darren10 Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 There is ample passages in the bible which I think can be best understood under the LDS concept ofthe Godhead and NOT under the trinitarian formulae. Here's a few passages.16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.Mathew 3Either this is an event where one person who was in heaven declared how much He loved His Son on earth yet these two persons are essentially the same being or one bein who resided in heaven spoke to another being who was on earth and the heavenly being praised the earthly being whic, to be consistant with scripture, was because the earthly being did the heavenly being's will.But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.Mathew 24Either only the first person of God knew when the second person of God knew when the second person of God was to return to earth (in the glory of the first person) and despite a clear superiority of the first person of God, the second person of God is still equal to the first person of God *OR* that there was God the Father who stands supreme and knew the hour of the return of His Son to earth but that the Son did not know of it (at least not at that moment of His existence).Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.John 20Either the second person of God had a God who is the first person of God but that the first person of God wasn't really the God of the second person for the first and second persons of God are co-equal together and neither have a God for together with the third person of God are God (mono) *OR* that the Father is the God of Jesus Christ who came to earth to glorify the Father and to provide a way for all to return to the Father.There are much more passages to cite. I think clearly the LDS concept of the Godhead is so much better, and simpler than the traditional trinitarian creeds. 1
Damien the Leper Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 You have a pretty good understanding of the LDS concept. Now put your concept in simple easy to understand terms just as you have done with the LDS concept.I believe in one God. By divine design God became incarnate via the Virgin Mary. I believe that Jesus is the incarnation of the Father, begotten and not created.
Sky Posted January 4, 2013 Author Posted January 4, 2013 I was speaking from an LDS perspective. Whether or not I agree with Mormon Theology is irrelevant. I love and respect your beliefs because they are unique in their own way. I advocated prayer to Her because I see her as extremely important to LDS beliefs. I did not mean to seem inconsistent.You're hard to follow sometimes, but okay. Fair enough. I hope you'll reconsider the Book of Mormon.
ERayR Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 I believe in one God. By divine design God became incarnate via the Virgin Mary. I believe that Jesus is the incarnation of the Father, begotten and not created.Then can I assume that since you believe that Jesus is the incarnation (manifestation) of God in the flesh that your beliefs are Modalistic? That is that Jesus and the Holy Ghost are simply different manifestations (modes/Masks)of God?
Damien the Leper Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 I agree, I don't see the rebellion in you at all.I have tried to figure out what it is that I actually believe. Unfortunately, I have spent more time on that than I did on actually believing. Because of my LDS background, I did have an aversion to mainstream Christian beliefs because they weren't what I was taught and I didn't understand them. Now that I'm more critically considering the arguments, I realize that what I grew up with doesn't make sense tome anymore. The Trinitarian model makes the most sense to me. I have to go with the Spirit and my heart on this.
Damien the Leper Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 You're hard to follow sometimes, but okay. Fair enough. I hope you'll reconsider the Book of Mormon.I know. Please read my post #262. I hope that helps even just a little.
Darren10 Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 What I thought the LDS believed was that God and Jesus were two separate beings made of flesh and bone. The Spirit did not have a body. However, the Father, the Son and the Spirit make up a tritheistic pantheon of gods exclusive to this plane of existence. I was also under the impression that the Father commanded Jesus and Michael to essentially create and order everything known to our reality.But this could be absolutely 100% incorrect. Either way, I reject it as scriptural (my opinion).Jesus having flesh and bone is definitely scriptural. As for the Father there is not non LDS scripture I can think of which explicitly states it but Jesus is in the likeness of the Father.As for the "pantheon of gods exclusive to this plane of existence", there is no LDs doctrine about that. The closest you'll get is deep speculation into the nature of the Father and the Godhead. But such are individual's understandings, not part of the LDS faith.As far as the Father commanding the Son who commanded Michael in the creation, yes, that is part of the LDS faith and worship as Father being supreme.
Damien the Leper Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 Then can I assume that since you believe that Jesus is the incarnation (manifestation) of God in the flesh that your beliefs are Modalistic? That is that Jesus and the Holy Ghost are simply different manifestations (modes/Masks)of God?No. The Nicene Creed, which I accept as biblical, is not modalistic. Trinitarianism is not modalistic.
Darren10 Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 (edited) And this where you and I will permanently part ways. I'm not an anti- Mormon nor do I condone any anti- Mormon rhetoric. The last time I was called an anti- Mormon, it was by my brother and it broke my heart. I may not agree with LDS theology but I am not of the opinion that it is a cult and I harbor no ill feelings toward the church, its foundations or its believers.With that said, take care Darren.Valentinus;I want ot be clear in that I said that you'd probably like that link because it is "anti anti-trinitarian". In other words, it argues in favor of trinitarian belief and it does so with a lot of research. The only group of people in that link mentioned were Jehovah's Witnesses not Mormons. Outside that weblink but connected to the homepage is anti-Mormon rhetoric. While I did not at all mean to refer to you being anti-Mormon, I know you're not, I can see how I phrased things could come across that way. my apologies. Edited January 4, 2013 by Darren10
Darren10 Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 Valentinus;While you do not have to answer I would like to know if you truly had a time of confusion regarding God in particular according ot the LDS theological belief in God? Whether you answr or not I'lkl retract my analysis. I see now it is wise for the mnoderators to make it policy to avoid it. I forgot that policy for the moment and I think what I said about you was perhaps a bit irrational.
Darren10 Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 3DOPYou make a very important distinction here. Jesus as Son is inferior to the Father NOT as to the quality of the life or existence that He has. The inferiority and thus the subordination is due to relationship. We could say the same thing about the drill instuctor who is lord over the candidates for basic training. In what way is he superior? Relationship. No one denies, and in fact, I insist that Fatherhood is superior to sonship, and thus when the New Testament Scriptures speak of One God, it is often the Father, and not necessarily the ontological Trinity. We cannot lose sight of the truth that all glory and honor and obedience is ultimately due to the Fount of all things, God the Father.However...I don't believe that Jesus' divinity, the nature He received as a Son is inferior. Jesus is equal to the Father in nature as the recruit is equal to the drill instructor.3DOPThe relationship is eternal. I agree. I'll go you one further. Jesus was obviously of a superior nature to St. Joseph and the Blessed Virgin. And yet He was obedient to them too. Why? Same reason---relationship. He was in a position of inferiority to His mother and foster father. By the way, that is a key to why Catholics ask favors of those two saints more than any other. Jesus does what they say. He obeyed them and He still honors them as His human parents. Most of the Catholic theology that people get bent out of shape about when it comes to Mary and Joseph stems precisely from a recognition that these two human beings are unique in all the universe, in that they are in a position of superiority to the Son of God by relationship. This relationship will endure forever. As creatures, they are infinitely below Him as to the nature He receives from his Heavenly Father, but we can never ignore the importance of relationship.Very interesting and well thought out. Frankly I never really gave much thought at all as tothe relationship between His earthly mother Mary and step father Joseph in the eternities. I do not see a difference in what you said and what the LDS would believe in this regard.The best way i can describe the eternal relation between the Father and the Son from the LDS perspective, is that the Son is subject ot the Father for the Father is the supreme being of all. But there's no doubt that the Father has exalted the Son above all else and all else will forever be subject to Him.
Damien the Leper Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 I think I've said enough and stepped on enough toes in this thread. It is probably time for me to bow out.
Bart Burk Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 (edited) Then can I assume that since you believe that Jesus is the incarnation (manifestation) of God in the flesh that your beliefs are Modalistic? That is that Jesus and the Holy Ghost are simply different manifestations (modes/Masks)of God?Then can I assume that since you believe that Jesus is the incarnation (manifestation) of God in the flesh that your beliefs are Modalistic? That is that Jesus and the Holy Ghost are simply different manifestations (modes/Masks)of God?I think it would be more correct to say that Jesus is the incarnation of God, not the Father. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three separate distinct persons who have the same Being. Person and Being are completely different concepts in Trinitarian understanding. Person is who each individual member of the Godhead is. Being is the quality of their Person which is equal for all three members of the Godhead. Jesus and the Holy Spirit subordinate their Persons to the Father within the Godhead, but they share exactly the same quality of Being as the Father. In the LDS vocabulary Person and Being seem to mean the same thing. Edited January 4, 2013 by Bart Burk
Bart Burk Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 Very interesting and well thought out. Frankly I never really gave much thought at all as tothe relationship between His earthly mother Mary and step father Joseph in the eternities. I do not see a difference in what you said and what the LDS would believe in this regard.The best way i can describe the eternal relation between the Father and the Son from the LDS perspective, is that the Son is subject ot the Father for the Father is the supreme being of all. But there's no doubt that the Father has exalted the Son above all else and all else will forever be subject to Him.Since I've become a Catholic I've never understood that Jesus would be subject to Mary and Joseph in their eternal relationship. That doesn't make any sense. Jesus was subject to Mary and Joseph while he was on earth, but it is clear to me that Mary and Joseph are subject to Jesus in heaven. When we ask Joseph and Mary to pray for us, we can expect that Mary and Joseph, being perfected saints, would only ask Jesus to do something for us which He already willed to do. Jesus rejoices in the honor we give to Mary and Joseph when we ask them for help, but he wouldn't grant us something just because we prayed to Mary, Joseph or any other saint if it wasn't already His will. The entire concept of prayer is a paradox no matter who we are praying to. We are commanded to pray, but God already knows we what we need, He knows what we are going to ask Him, and answers our prayers according to what He decided even before we prayed.
ERayR Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 I think it would be more correct to say that Jesus is the incarnation of God, not the Father. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three separate distinct persons who have the same Being. Person and Being are completely different concepts in Trinitarian understanding. Person is who each individual member of the Godhead is. Being is the quality of their Person which is equal for all three members of the Godhead. Jesus and the Holy Spirit subordinate their Persons to the Father within the Godhead, but they share exactly the same quality of Being as the Father. In the LDS vocabulary Person and Being seem to mean the same thing.That still leaves me with the question: What is God? What is then different than in LDS philosophy of God? LDS would agree that all three are members of one Godhead. LDS would agree that Jesus and The Holy Ghost subordinate themselves to The Father. LDS would agree that all three are of the same quality of person. So we have the trinitarians who say they are three distinct persons that are one in unity, that two of them willing subordinate themselves to the other and all three are the same quality of person. Again, and I have asked this before: define God. Until I can get a cogent response to that question I have no way of communicating with someone about it. And that seems to be a problem because right about here is where we start wandering of quoting scripture describing God's attributes but not defining God.
Bart Burk Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 (edited) That still leaves me with the question: What is God? What is then different than in LDS philosophy of God? LDS would agree that all three are members of one Godhead. LDS would agree that Jesus and The Holy Ghost subordinate themselves to The Father. LDS would agree that all three are of the same quality of person.So we have the trinitarians who say they are three distinct persons that are one in unity, that two of them willing subordinate themselves to the other and all three are the same quality of person.Again, and I have asked this before: define God. Until I can get a cogent response to that question I have no way of communicating with someone about it. And that seems to be a problem because right about here is where we start wandering of quoting scripture describing God's attributes but not defining God.In my mind the differences are minimal. But people like to argue. God is the eternally omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and uncreated first cause of everything. Edited January 4, 2013 by Bart Burk 1
ERayR Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 In my mind the differences are minimal. But people like to argue. God is the eternally omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and uncreated first cause of everything.Let me see if I understand. God then is the composite of three persons acting in unison. Is this a fair statement?
Bart Burk Posted January 4, 2013 Posted January 4, 2013 Let me see if I understand. God then is the composite of three persons acting in unison. Is this a fair statement?I think that is a fair statement. It is impossible for us to describe the unity of God since it is a unity which we have not yet experienced. We accept the unity of God on faith at this point, awaiting the time when we actually see God and enter into oneness with Him. 1
Recommended Posts